Participatory policy processes in a black box? Stakeholder interviews about the development of Germany´s national nutrition strategy

IF 3.6 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Marike Andreas, Anna K. Kaiser , Falko F. Sniehotta
{"title":"Participatory policy processes in a black box? Stakeholder interviews about the development of Germany´s national nutrition strategy","authors":"Marike Andreas,&nbsp;Anna K. Kaiser ,&nbsp;Falko F. Sniehotta","doi":"10.1016/j.healthpol.2025.105298","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Stakeholder participation in policy processes can make processes more effective, democratic, and foster consensus in complex policy fields – if managed well. However, little is known about the conditions driving meaningful stakeholder participation in national-level policymaking.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>We investigated Germany's 2024 national nutrition strategy to understand conditions for meaningful stakeholder participation.</div></div><div><h3>Method</h3><div>We invited all organisations officially listed as stakeholders in Germany's national nutrition strategy (<em>N</em> = 123) to participate in 30-minute semi-structured interviews. In the interviews, we asked about their perceptions of the process. Interviews were transcribed and analysed with MAXQDA. Using Clarke and Brown's approach to thematic analysis, we inductively coded positive and negative perceptions of the strategy.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 55 experts from 54 organizations participated in the interviews. They represented industry associations (<em>n</em> = 15) and public-sector researchers (<em>n</em> = 14), followed by NGOs (<em>n</em> = 13). Stakeholders welcomed the participatory nature of the nutrition strategy development, seeing it as an opportunity to contribute their perspectives and drive political change in health and sustainability. Building networks with other stakeholders was also seen as a positive outcome. However, many expressed concerns about the lack of transparency in the process - in particular how their input would influence the final strategy. Some feared their participation would legitimize outcomes they could not support.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The participatory process to inform Germany's national nutrition strategy resembled a consultation. Our interviews suggest that transparent communication, especially clarity on how stakeholder input is used, is crucial to encourage genuine collaboration. These insights can help policymakers fully leverage stakeholder participation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":55067,"journal":{"name":"Health Policy","volume":"155 ","pages":"Article 105298"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851025000545","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Stakeholder participation in policy processes can make processes more effective, democratic, and foster consensus in complex policy fields – if managed well. However, little is known about the conditions driving meaningful stakeholder participation in national-level policymaking.

Objective

We investigated Germany's 2024 national nutrition strategy to understand conditions for meaningful stakeholder participation.

Method

We invited all organisations officially listed as stakeholders in Germany's national nutrition strategy (N = 123) to participate in 30-minute semi-structured interviews. In the interviews, we asked about their perceptions of the process. Interviews were transcribed and analysed with MAXQDA. Using Clarke and Brown's approach to thematic analysis, we inductively coded positive and negative perceptions of the strategy.

Results

A total of 55 experts from 54 organizations participated in the interviews. They represented industry associations (n = 15) and public-sector researchers (n = 14), followed by NGOs (n = 13). Stakeholders welcomed the participatory nature of the nutrition strategy development, seeing it as an opportunity to contribute their perspectives and drive political change in health and sustainability. Building networks with other stakeholders was also seen as a positive outcome. However, many expressed concerns about the lack of transparency in the process - in particular how their input would influence the final strategy. Some feared their participation would legitimize outcomes they could not support.

Conclusion

The participatory process to inform Germany's national nutrition strategy resembled a consultation. Our interviews suggest that transparent communication, especially clarity on how stakeholder input is used, is crucial to encourage genuine collaboration. These insights can help policymakers fully leverage stakeholder participation.

Abstract Image

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health Policy
Health Policy 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
6.10%
发文量
157
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Policy is intended to be a vehicle for the exploration and discussion of health policy and health system issues and is aimed in particular at enhancing communication between health policy and system researchers, legislators, decision-makers and professionals concerned with developing, implementing, and analysing health policy, health systems and health care reforms, primarily in high-income countries outside the U.S.A.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信